Duck
Sarcastic remark goes here
It's only expensive because of the appeals process.
I say if they're guilty beyond a shadow of doubt, and there's no possible way the evidence could have been tampered with, the conviction is based on overwhelming physical evidence, not circumstantial or from witness testimony, they oughta just take them out in the prison yard & put a couple of hollow points in their heads immediately after the jury foreman reads the verdict.
But that would probably only be about 1% of cases though. It's pretty hard to be 100% positive someone is guilty. Even witness testimony is useless.
My dad told me about experiments with people in recent years. They'll have a bunch of random people, inform them that they're test subjects in a psychological experiment but lead them to believe the experiment is something like memorizing cards & numbers & stuff.
Instead they'll get them all in a waiting room & after a few minutes, two actors among them will fake an argument, then a fist fight. Either the psychologists or other actors will pose as cops & take everyone from the room out for a private interview asking them what happened & who took the first punch. It turns out half of them got it wrong, and surprisingly, the ones who got it right weren't 100% positive they were remembering it right but were "pretty sure". Most of the ones who got it wrong were also saying they were 100% positive that what they remembered was correct.
The experiment was repeated using different groups of test subjects, and different actors. They'd have tests where the two actors faking the fight were radically different, as in a different race, body size, age, & sometimes one of them would be dressed like a street thug & the other would be dressed like he's in church. They'd have the churchy-looking actor be the aggressor & take the first punch, but the majority of the witnesses would recall that the actor dressed like a thug started it & took the first punch. The little guy would initiate a physical fight with a big guy, but most of the witnesses would say the big guy took the first swing.
I saw a TV show of an experiment done on unknowing test subjects. They carried them out like a hidden camera show. They had a clean cut, attractive looking male actor reach out & grab a sexy female actor's butt & she jumped & screamed "pervert", but they had a scruffy looking ugly male actor standing just as close to her as the actor who actually grabbed her butt. Actors posing as police ran in & ask the witnesses who grabbed her butt & most of them said it was the ugly guy, sometimes even when the "victim" actress pointed at the better looking actor. Then they reviewed the videos shot from multiple angles, and in the videos some of the victims weren't even looking in the actors' direction until after the female actress screamed & got their attention, but the "witnesses" still tell the actors posing as police that it was the uglier of the two male actors who did it. Very few of the witnesses who in fact, didn't actually see it happen, admitted that they didn't see it.
The results of the experiment was basically that people's memories totally suck but they'll either subconsciously, or willingly fill in blanks in their memories & falsely accuse people based on stereotypes the two actors were portraying by their acting and/or physical appearance.
